I stopped patronizing Craigslist after they removed the erotic services section after intense political pressure.
The exact same reason, stop looking at me like that...
Nice that amazon have shown their colours... I shall no longer trade with them. Vote with your wallet, it's the only way they'll learn.
This is exactly why Amazon should not be hosting them, it is not their place to make stances on a political stage; rather, they should be focusing on what they do best, delaying my shipments in a blatant attempt to get me to upgrade to Amazon Prime.
Wikileaks needs the hand of a non-profit or media organization, not a for-profit IT company which has no business risking its value and customer base for one lightning rod of a customer.
Why are other people's allergies my problem? Did I give them to them?
Teach school-age kids to be careful, and provide them with epi-pens. Problem solved.
Five year olds can walk a mile too and from school -- we did when I was young. (And we knew not to talk to strangers.) They can certainly be taught to not eat strange foods. Crap, when I was a kid, six and seven year old diabetic kids were giving themselves scheduled insulin injections.
Jesus Christ, dude. No one said other peoples' allergies are your problem, just that they can be serious. Some allergies spontaneously appear so unless every person walks around with an epi 'just in case', it's impossible to be prepared for every incidence of anaphylactic shock. Upset that someone threatened to take your peanuts away on a plane?
And we don't let five-year-olds walk a mile to school alone not because we don't think we can teach them to not talk to strangers, but because they are too small and weak to defend themselves against being forced into a car. Some people take the concept of 'personal responsibility' way too far.
This seems to be what happened: Five days after her lung transplant the recipient ate a candy bar with peanuts. She had a minor reaction but it was relatively benign due to the immune suppressing drugs she was taking for the transplant; her reaction was confused with normal complications of lung transplants. But that first taste of peanut was all that her body needed to prime her for the almost-deadly reaction seven months later. And the woman continues to be allergic to peanuts to this day.
Fucking Snickers, always getting the last laugh.
Yes, clearly the old techie folks are just angry and bitter that technology isn't as hard as it used to be so young punks like Zuckerberg can succeed.
The difference between Gates / Zuckerberg and Jobs lies not in how they came to power, but what they did with it once they got it. Microsoft ran into trouble with its IE "integration" with Windows, and Zuckerberg has gladly sold his user's private information to what I can only assume is the top bidder. Jobs is not abusing his power (as far as we know) by selling our private information or abusing his position as leader in the marketplace - you are not forced to buy Apple products because your business or home computer is a running a certain operating system. There are other MP3 players / phones / laptops / TV streaming products out there that offer the same basic services and content you'll find on an Apple product.
So let’s chill with the hating on Zuckerberg’s success. It’s all just a bit tacky and hypocritical.
Zuckerberg has been and likely always will be distasteful for his disdain for his userbase and how willing he is to sell them out if it fattens his bottom line. He has no honor, and "chill(ing) with the hating" on a person with no honor is, in my opinion, beyond a bit tacky but likely not hypocritical for those that do.
He said he has insurance - I am absolutely shocked the insurance company did not enforce the payment of this fee as a way to protect their interest in his house, either by revocation of the policy for nonpayment, or by making the payment themselves and charging the homeowner through the premium on their insurance policy.
Also - if you watch the video, he said his son had set fire to his house 3 years ago in a similar manner, hadn't paid, but the fire company responded anyway with the 'promise to pay' later (under a different fire chief). It's likely the entire community had the mindset of "they'll come even if I don't pay", and the new fire chief wasn't able to keep enough firefighters on to cover all areas due to lack of funds. The real problem is likely due to such responses in the past where the fee was not enforced and on an informal 'pay-as-you-go' policy. Personally, if a family member had already experienced a fire and there was even a whiff of a question of whether the fire department would respond or not, you'd better believe I'd have that bill paid in full, on-time, every year.
If your TV were fully capable of creating TV shows, but artificially restricted because your television's manufacturer was run by a control freak, then you would be perfectly within your right to be upset.
Companies get to place whatever limitations they want on their products, for whatever reasons. It's up to consumers to decide whether to buy them or not with those restrictions in place. There are better, more targeted tools out there for creating content than the iPad. If you want the features of an iPad with the ability to create content with whatever tools you want, make your own.
I have this little rule that I find useful in these sorts of discussions. Anyone who takes any opportunity presented to slip in how the ipad is "revolutionary", without reason or providing justification, is revealed to just be mindlessly parroting Apple's marketing materials, and thus one should not expect serious analysis from them.
Enjoy your birdfeed parrot.
I have this little rule, too, about continuing to engage with people who can not make constructive arguments but instead merely insult those they disagree with, so you won't be responded to again.
If I have a beef with the iPad, it's that while it's a lovely device for consuming content, it doesn't do much to facilitate its creation.
Yes, Grossman does get it right. That is my disappointment too. The iPad is all about consuming content, being a consumer. It is unlike a PC which can be used to create content. The iPad is a passive device.
On a related note, I am disappointed that my purchase of a TV does not allow me to create TV shows!
There is an egregious mismatch between what the iPad IS and what people WANT it to be going on in this thread. There are more than enough tools to create right now, the iPad is a revolutionary way to deliver what's created to the consumer. The Time article missed the point while making the point.
This is just a ridiculous attempt to criminalize scuzzy, crappy, opportunistic behavior on the part of one party (scalpers) at the expense of another scuzzy, crappy, opportunistic party (TicketMaster). This strikes me as another case of people trying to misuse the law to remedy the unexpected (only by idiots) defeat of a faulty system.
This is just your bias preventing you from seeing the argument. If you RTFI (Indictment), you'll see that TicketMaster had clear ToS on their site which specifically prohibited the purchase of tickets on their websites for commercial re-sale. Wiseguys wasn't even selling their tickets to the consumer, but to scalpers to sell for even MORE markup to the consumer.
Their software also jockeyed Wiseguys to the front of the queue, when Ticketmasters was legally obligated to sell on a first-come, first serve basis and spent millions on technology assuring users were queued in that manner. They put forth good faith and effort in creating that technology and yes, efforts to work around it, with or without success, is illegal.
IANAL, and I am no fan of Ticketmaster, but it's pretty striking that you would dismiss a company's right to protect itself in its contracts and reputation just because you do not like with the company. Ticketmaster made the same amount of money it would have regardless of if it sold to private buyers or if Wiseguys bought all of their tickets; however, their contractual agreements with the venues, artists, etc., hold that they sell the tickets with specific conditions, of which they would be violating by turning a blind eye to whom is buying their tickets.
It is also the expectation that all consumers have equal opportunity to buy tickets using their website which is harmed when, despite their best efforts, companies with technological advantages deliberately overcome the considerable amount of defenses Ticketmaster put into place to prevent that sort of behavior.
Disliking the prosecuting company does not make their actions a misuse of law.